The Emancipation of the Russian Serfs, 1861: A Charter of Freedom or an Act of Betrayal? | History Today The Emancipation of the Russian Serfs, 1861: A Charter of Freedom or an Act of Betrayal? Russia Civil Rights , Social Michael Lynch takes a fresh look at the key reform of 19th-century Russia. In 1861 serfdom, the system which tied the Russian peasants irrevocably to their landlords, was abolished at the Tsar’s imperial command. Four years later, slavery in the USA was similarly declared unlawful by presidential order. Tsar Alexander II (1855-81) shared with his father, Nicholas I, a conviction that American slavery was inhumane. This is not as hypocritical as it might first appear. The serfdom that had operated in Russia since the middle of the seventeenth century was technically not slavery. The landowner did not own the serf. This contrasted with the system in the USA where the negro slaves were chattels; that is, they were regarded in law as the disposable property of their masters. In Russia the traditional relationship between lord and serf was based on land.

It was because he lived on his land that the serf was bound to the lord. The Russian system dated back to 1649 and the introduction of a legal code which had granted total authority to the landowner to control the life and work of the peasant serfs who lived on his land. Since this included the power to deny the serf the right to move elsewhere, the difference between slavery and serfdom in practice was so fine as to be indistinguishable. The purpose behind the granting of such powers to the Russian dvoriane (nobility of landowners) in 1649 had been to make the nobles dependent on, and therefore loyal to, the tsar. They were to express that loyalty in practical form by serving the tsar as military officers or public officials. In this way the Romanov emperors built up Russia’s civil bureaucracy and the armed services as bodies of public servants who had a vested interest in maintaining the tsarist state. The serfs made up just over a third of the population and formed half of the peasantry. They were most heavily concentrated in the central and western provinces of Russia. Why was it necessary to end Serfdom?

In a number of respects serfdom was not dissimilar to the feudalism that had operated in many parts of pre-modern Europe. However, long before the 19th century, the feudal system had been abandoned in western Europe as it moved into the commercial and industrial age. Imperial Russia underwent no such transition. It remained economically and socially backward. Nearly all Russians acknowledged this. Some, known as slavophiles, rejoiced, claiming that holy Russia was a unique God-inspired nation that had nothing to learn from the corrupt nations to the west. But many Russians, of all ranks and classes, had come to accept that reform of some kind was unavoidable if their nation was to progress. It became convenient to use serfdom to explain all Russia’s current weaknesses: it was responsible for military incompetence, food shortages, over population, civil disorder, industrial backwardness. These were oversimplified explanations but there some truth in all of them: serfdom was symptomatic of the underlying difficulties that held Russia back from progress.It was, therefore, a particularly easy target for the intelligentsia, those intellectuals who in their writings argued for the liberalising of Russian society, beginning with the emancipation of the exploited peasants.

As often happened in Russian history, it was war that forced the issue. The Russian state had entered the Crimean War in 1854 with high hopes of victory. Two years later it suffered a heavy defeat at the hands of the Allied armies of France, Britain and Turkey. The shock to Russia was profound. The nation had always prided itself on its martial strength. Now it had been humiliated. Alexander II’s Role By an odd twist of fate, defeat in the war proved of value to the new Tsar. Although he had been trained for government from an early age, foreign observers had remarked on how diffident and unsure he appeared. The war changed all that. Coming to the throne in 1855 in the middle of the conflict, Alexander II was unable to save Russia from military failure, but the humiliation convinced him that, if his nation was to have stability and peace at home and be honoured abroad, military and domestic reforms were vitally necessary. The first step on that path would be the removal of serfdom, whose manifest inefficiency benefited neither lord, peasant, nor nation. Alexander declared that, despite Russia’s defeat, the end of the war marked a golden moment in the nation’s history.

Now was the hour when every Russian, under the protection of the law, could begin to enjoy ‘the fruits of his own labours’. Alexander was right in thinking the time was propitious. It had long been appreciated that some land reform was necessary. To the social and economic arguments were now added powerful military ones. The army was the great symbol of Russia’s worth. As long as its army remained strong Russia could afford to ignore its backwardness as a nation. But the Crimean defeat had undermined this notion of Russia’s invincibility. Few now had reasoned objections to reform. Serfdom was manifestly not working. It had failed to provide the calibre of soldier Russia needed. So it was that in 1856, the second year of his reign, Alexander II (1855- 81) announced to the nobles of Russia that ‘the existing condition of owning souls cannot remained unchanged. It is better to begin to destroy serfdom from above than to wait until that time when it begins to destroy itself from below’. These words have often been quoted.

What is less often cited is his following sentence: ‘I ask you, gentlemen, to figure out how all this can be carried out to completion.’ Alexander was determined on emancipation, but he shrewdly judged that – by making over to the landowners the responsibility for detailing how this was to be done – he had made it very difficult for them either to resist his command or to blame him if their plans were subsequently shown to be faulty. This was evidence of the remarkable power and influence that the tsar exercised as absolute ruler. Over the next five years, thousands of officials sitting in a range of committees drafted plans for the abolition of serfdom. When their work was done they presented their proposals to Alexander who then formally issued them in an Imperial Proclamation. When it was finally presented, in 1861, the Emancipation statute, which accompanied the Proclamation, contained 22 separate measures whose details filled 360 closely printed pages of a very large volume.

Alexander declared that the basic aim of emancipation was to satisfy all those involved in serfdom, serfs and land owners alike: Called by Divine Providence We vowed in our hearts to fulfil the mission which is entrusted to Us and to surround with Our affection and Our Imperial solicitude all Our faithful subjects of every rank and condition. Betrayal of the Peasants? Impressive though these freedoms first looked, it soon became apparent that they had come at a heavy price for the peasants. It was not they, but the landlords, who were the beneficiaries. This should not surprise us: after, it had been the dvoriane who had drafted the emancipation proposals. The compensation that the landowners received was far in advance of the market value of their property. They were also entitled to decide which part of their holdings they would give up. Unsurprisingly, they kept the best land for themselves. The serfs got the leftovers. The data shows that the landlords retained two-thirds of the land while the peasants received only one-third. So limited was the supply of affordable quality land to the peasants that they were reduced to buying narrow strips that proved difficult to maintain and which yielded little food or profit.

Moreover, while the landowners were granted financial compensation for what they gave up, the peasants had to pay for their new property. Since they had no savings, they were advanced 100 per cent mortgages, 80 per cent provided by the State bank and the remaining 20 by the landlords. This appeared a generous offer, but as in any loan transaction the catch was in the repayments. The peasants found themselves saddled with redemption payments that became a lifelong burden that then had to be handed on to their children. The restrictions on the peasants did not end there. To prevent emancipation creating too much disruption, the government urged the peasants to remain in their localities. This was easy to achieve since, for obvious reasons, the great majority of the ex-serfs bought their allotments of land from the estates where they were already living. It was also the case that the land available for purchase came from a stock of land granted to the village and was then sold on to individual peasants. A further aid to the authorities in maintaining control was the reorganisation of local government, which was one of the key reforms that followed in the wake of emancipation.

The government, through its land ‘commandants’ (officials appointed to oversee emancipation) insisted that the mir (the village commune) become the focus of life in the countryside. The motive was not cultural but administrative. The mir would provide an effective organisation for the collection of taxes to which the freed serfs were now liable; it would also be a controlling mechanism for keeping order in the countryside. Arguably, after 1861, the freed Russian peasant was as restricted as he had been when a serf. Instead of being tied to the lord, the peasant was now tied to the village. What all this denoted was the mixture of fear and deep distaste that the Russian establishment traditionally felt towards the peasantry. Often contemptuously referred to as the ‘dark masses’, the peasants were seen as a dangerous force that had to be kept down. Beneath the generous words in which Emancipation had been couched was a belief that the common people of Russia, unless controlled and directed, were a very real threat to the existing order of things. Whatever emancipation may have offered to the peasants, it was not genuine liberty.

The Significance of Emancipation Emancipation proved the first in a series of measures that Alexander produced as a part of a programme that included legal and administrative reform and the extension of press and university freedoms. But behind all these reforms lay an ulterior motive. Alexander II was not being liberal for its own sake. According to official records kept by the Ministry of the Interior (equivalent to the Home Office in Britain) there had been 712 peasant uprisings in Russia between 1826 and 1854. By granting some of the measures that the intelligentsia had called for, while in fact tightening control over the peasants, Alexander intended to lessen the social and political threat to the established system that those figures frighteningly represented. Above all, he hoped that an emancipated peasantry, thankful for the gifts that a bountiful tsar had given them, would provide physically fitter and morally worthier recruits for Russia’s armies, the symbol and guarantee of Russia’s greatness as a nation. There is a sense in which the details of Emancipation were less significant than the fact of the reform itself.

Whatever its shortcomings, emancipation was the prelude to the most sustained programme of reform that imperial Russia had yet experienced (see the Timeline). There is also the irony that such a sweeping move could not have been introduced except by a ruler with absolute powers; it could not have been done in a democracy. The only comparable social change of such magnitude was President Lincoln’s freeing of the negro slaves in 1865. But, as a modern Russian historian (Alexander Chubarov, The Fragile Empire, New York, 1999, p.75) has provocatively pointed out: ‘the [Russian] emancipation was carried out on an infinitely larger scale, and was achieved without civil war and without devastation or armed coercion’. Yet when that achievement has been duly noted and credited, hindsight suggests that emancipation was essentially a failure. It raised expectations and dashed them. Russia gave promise of entering a new dawn but then retreated into darkness. This tends to suggest that Alexander II and his government deliberately set out to betray the peasants. This was certainly the argument used by radical critics of the regime. It is important to consider, however, that land reform always takes time to work. It can never be a quick fix.

Alexander’s prime motive in introducing emancipation was undoubtedly the desire to produce results that were beneficial to his regime. But this is not to suggest that he was insincere in his wish to elevate the condition of the peasants. Where he can be faulted is in his failure to push reform far enough. The fact is that Alexander II suffered from the besetting dilemma that afflicted all the reforming tsars from Peter the Great onwards - how to achieve reform without damaging the interests of the privileged classes that made up imperial Russia. It was a question that was never satisfactorily answered because it was never properly faced. Whenever their plans did not work out or became difficult to achieve, the Romanovs abandoned reform and resorted to coercion and repression. Emancipation was intended to give Russia economic and social stability and thus prepare the way for its industrial and commercial growth. But it ended in failure. It both frightened the privileged classes and disappointed the progressives. It went too far for those slavophiles in the court who wanted Russia to cling to its old ways and avoid the corruption that came with western modernity. It did not go far enough for those progressives who believed that a major social transformation was needed in Russia. There is a larger historical perspective.

It is suggested by many historians that, for at least a century before its collapse in the Revolution of 1917, imperial Russia had been in institutional crisis; the tsarist system had been unable to find workable solutions to the problems that faced it. If it was to modernise itself, that is to say if it was to develop its agriculture and industry to the point where it could sustain its growing population and compete on equal terms with its European and Asian neighbours and international competitors, it would need to modify its existing institutions. This it proved unable or unwilling to do. Therein lies the tragedy of Emancipation. It is an outstanding example of tsarist ineptitude. Its introduction held out the possibility that Russia could build on this fundamentally progressive measure and modify its agricultural economy in such a manner as to cater for its vast population, which doubled to 125 million during the second half of the 19th century. But the chance was lost. So reduced was the peasant as an agricultural worker by 1900 that only half of his meagre income came from farming. He had to sustain himself by labouring.

So much for Alexander II’s claim that he viewed the task of improving the condition of the peasants as ‘a sacred inheritance’ to which he was honour bound. Issues to Debate To what extent did defeat in the Crimean War provide Alexander II with an ideal opportunity to introduce major reforms? In what ways were the Russian peasants better off because of Emancipation, in what ways worse off? Do you accept the view that the Emancipation of the Serfs was symptomatic of the unwillingness of the tsarist system to embrace much needed root and branch reform? Serfs Emancipated: 1861 Back to Imperial Russia Chronology Great Britain and France entered the two year Crimean War against Russia in 1854. The result left Russia very open and weak because the country was grossly underdeveloped when compared to most major civilizations of the time. For example, Russia's military was frail because it almost entirely consisted of serfs, who were forced to serve in it. France and Great Britain, on the other hand, did not require its citizens to participate in the armed forces unwillingly. After this conflict, it was also evident that Russia's bureaucracy was filled with corruption and insufficient organization.

Furthermore, "At the root of all the weaknesses and abuses was the supreme evil of serfdom." [1] In short, in order for Russia to regain her strength, serfdom must be abolished. The first step Alexander II took in the process of reforming serfdom was to appoint a committee to identify possible solutions to this complex situation; this committee was formed in 1857. After two years of committee meetings, a body called the Editorial Commission was formed to define the best solution to the following problems: "first, how much land was to be given to the peasants and on what terms, and secondly, what kind of administrative authority was to take the place of the powers of the serf-owning landlord." [2] Early in 1861 a piece of legislation freeing the serfs was approved and quickly passed into law. The serfs were free, yet were not given land. If the serf desired to own land, he would be delegated a small portion of property which he had to pay for. Since the war was not devastating, no major overthrow in the government's administration came about directly.

Freeing the serfs did little to give them real freedom, as they had little or no money to buy the inadequate amount of land provided for them to purchase. Additionally, brutality was continued towards the serfs for years to come. Yet, despite all of this, "It was inevitable that the major reform should bring great changes in administration, army and judiciary." [3] [1]Huge Seton-Watson, The Russian Empire 1801-1917 (Great Britain; Oxford University Press, 1967) p. 331 [2] Huge Seton-Watson, The Russian Empire 1801-1917 (Great Britain; Oxford University Press, 1967) p. 341 [3] Huge Seton-Watson, The Russian Empire 1801-1917 (Great Britain; Oxford University Press, 1967) p.

348 Huge Seton-Watson, The Russian Empire 1801-1917 (Great Britain; Oxford University Press, 1967) Vera Brovido, Apostils into Terrorists (Great Britain; Billing and Sons ltd, 1978) W. E. Mosse, Alexander II and the Modernization of Russia ( New York; The Macmillan Company, 1958) Researched and Written by: Emancipation of The Serfs | History of Russia Emancipation of The Serfs Russian Empire | 2 | The 1861 Emancipation of Russian Serfs was the single most important reform of the reign of Tsar Alexander II. As a consequence, it is taught widely on Russian history courses around the world (particularly A-Level History courses in the UK – I know, because I did the course myself, long ago!). This article gives a brief overview of serfdom in Russia prior to the emancipation, the reasons for emancipation and its impact on Russian politics. What is serfdom? But first, before thinking about history, it’s important to answer the simple question of – what is a serf?

Russian History - Books we Recommend 1. Or click here to see more books about Russian history A serf is a peasant who lives under the political system of feudalism – they aren’t just unique to Russia but were found across Europe throughout the middle ages. The peasant is almost, but not quite, a slave, tied to the land of a landowner who also owns the right to that peasant’s existence. As well as working on their landowner’s land (on the fields, in his mines, in his factories), they could rent a small patch of land on which they could practice subsistence farming to provide for their own needs. History of Russian Serfdom Serfdom in Russia developed gradually over many centuries. Historians usually trace the root of Russian serfdom to the 11th century, but it only began to fully establish itself after the introduction of the Sobornoye Ulozhenie (Law Code) in 1649 by Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich which first legally tied serfs to Russian estates. Shortly after, in 1658 it was made illegal for serfs to flee their estates and this really entrenched them in their lowly position in Russian society.

Slavery was also legal in Russia until 1723, when it was abolished by Peter the Great. The lot of slaves was not greatly improved, though –the vast majority simply became serfs. By the middle of the 19th century, around half of all Russian peasants were privately owned serfs. Other Russian peasants mostly worked on land owned by the state – nominally they were freer, but in reality they remained serfs. Emancipation of the Serfs Listening to the Emancipation Proclamation Alexander II was one of Russia’s more liberal leaders. He recognised that Russia’s feudal system – long since abandoned by Western European powers – was a liability. Russia’s weakness had been demonstrated by its defeat in the Crimean War, in which its armies of conscripted serfs had been regularly outmatched by the volunteer armies of France and Great Britain. The war effort had also been hampered because Russia’s largely agricultural society was unable to compete with the industrialised Empires of Western Europe. After a number of committees had considered the matter, Alexander published his Emancipation Manifesto in March 1861.

The Manifesto was quickly turned into law, and all privately owned serfs were given the right to become free citizens, free to marry, own land and their own businesses. Those tied to the land were entitled to buy the land they had previously leased, but not at a very good rate. Naturally, the land that serfs were allowed to buy was usually of poor quality – the best land was held back by landowners for themselves. And to add insult to injury the newly free serfs paid, on average, more than a third over the market rate for their land – some paid almost double the market rate. They paid for their land with money loaned to them by the Government, and were required to repay it over 49 years. The redemption payments caused considerable hardship – many simply sold their land back to their previous landlords to cover their debts – until they were finally abolished in 1907. State owned serfs were given a similar emancipation package five years later, in 1866. The terms of their deal were less onerous, however, and they usually received larger plots of land.

Impact of the Emancipation of the Serfs In the short term, emancipation had a positive impact on Russia, and Russian economic growth ran at an average of 4.6% between 1860 and 1900 , speeding up over the years. An increase in commercial farming had a dramatic impact on Russia’s agricultural sector, and the changing nature of the working and middle classes led to an increase in the number of people qualified to take on management roles in factories and industry, increasing productivity there. The serfs’ change in status also led to a much more vibrant commercial market in Russia, as serfs were freer to make more purchasing decisions on their own. The changes also altered the dynamic of Russian society in ways that led to social unrest. The heavy burden of redemption payments caused a great deal of resentment among peasants in rural Russia. In addition, the boom in Russian industry led to a rise in the population of cities and harsh working conditions fermented radicalisation among the industrial workforce. It is fair to say, therefore, that the emancipation of the serfs in Russia was a factor in the unrest that led to both the 1905 Russian revolution and the 1917 Russian Revolutions.

Not the only factor, certainly, but significant enough to be notable. Share: The Emancipation of the Russian Serfs in 1861 | The Classroom | Synonym The Emancipation of the Russian Serfs in 1861 by Rita Kennedy Czar Alexander II implemented the Emancipation Manifesto in 1861. Related Articles What Political Effect Did the Black Death Have on the Middle Ages? The 1861 Emancipation of the Serfs was Russian leader Czar Alexander II's attempt at reforming Russian society by eradicating serfdom. Russian serfs held a similar status as slaves in the United States, with the exception that they were not owned by their landlord in the way that slaves were. Established by legal code in 1649, serfdom allowed landowners to control virtually all aspects of the peasants who lived on their land. Background Serfs made up around one-third of the Russian population and almost half the peasantry, and, although they held no political power, a total of 712 peasant uprisings between 1826 and 1854 made Russian rulers wary of widespread civil unrest.

Russia’s defeat in the 1850s Crimean War led Czar Alexander II to implement a program of social reform, and he placed the emancipation of the serfs at the center of that program. “It is better to begin to destroy serfdom from above,” he said, “than to wait until that time when it begins to destroy itself from below.” Alexander charged Russian landowners with the task of working out a program for emancipation. Emancipation Manifesto A lengthy process of consultation and negotiation among the landowners eventually resulted in the Emancipation Manifesto. Approved by the State Council in January 1861 and formally signed by Czar Alexander on Feb. 19, the Manifesto was published on March 5. The published document revealed its committee origins in the hundreds of pages detailing the terms of the emancipation. Emancipation Terms Emancipation radically altered the legal status of serfs. As a result of the Manifesto, serfs were now legally free of their landlords. This meant that they could own property in their own right, and could purchase land from their previous owner. They could also marry freely, trade, vote and sue in court.

However, landlords chose the land they would sell to serfs; they selected the poorest-quality plots, and often provided the mortgages that allowed serfs to make the purchase in the first place. The government also tried to keep serfs in their local areas to avoid large population movements that would disrupt the country. Results The Emancipation Manifesto initially led to disturbances among peasants, which were sufficiently widespread that the Russian army was brought in to suppress them. In Podolia, Hrodno, Penza, Voronezh and Chernigov, thousands of peasants refused to work and prepared for an armed uprising. Levels of unrest eventually dropped, but most former serfs found it difficult to support themselves and their families, and by 1900 only half the income of a peasant family came from farming -- the rest was made up of paid manual labor. References Emancipation Manifesto | Russia [1861] | Britannica.com Emancipation Manifesto list of cities in Russia Emancipation Manifesto, (March 3 [Feb. 19, Old Style], 1861), manifesto issued by the Russian emperor Alexander II that accompanied 17 legislative acts that freed the serfs of the Russian Empire.

(The acts were collectively called Statutes Concerning Peasants Leaving Serf Dependence, or Polozheniya o Krestyanakh Vykhodyashchikh iz Krepostnoy Zavisimosty.) Defeat in the Crimean War , a perceptible change in public opinion, and the increasing number and violence of peasant revolts had shown Alexander, who became tsar during the war, that only a thorough reform of Russia’s antiquated social structure would put the nation on an equal footing with the Western powers. The abolition of serfdom , he decided, was the first priority. In April 1856, in a speech to a group of noblemen, he revealed his intention. The following January he appointed a secret committee to investigate the problems. When the committee, composed primarily of conservative landowners, failed to draw pertinent conclusions, Alexander publicly authorized the formation of provincial committees of noblemen to formulate plans for emancipating the serfs (December 1857). By the end of 1859 the committees had sent their proposals to the “editorial commissions,” which evaluated them and drafted the preliminary statutes for emancipation (October 1860).

These were revised by the Chief Committee (formerly the secret committee) and by the State Council (January 1861) and were signed by the tsar on Feb. 19, 1861, and published on March 5. The final edict, or ukase, was a compromise between the plans of the liberals, the conservatives , the government bureaucrats , and the landed nobility. It fully satisfied no one, particularly the group directly involved: the peasants. According to the act, the serfs were immediately granted personal liberties and promised land. But the process by which they were to acquire the land was slow, complex, and expensive. They were required to serve their landlords while inventories of all the land were taken, land allotments calculated, and payment calculated, since, legally, the land belonged to the landlord. Peasants, with the government loans, had to “redeem” their land allotments from the landlords and make “redemption payments” to the government for the next 49 years.

Britannica Stories Alexander II, Emancipation Manifesto, 1861 - Documents in Russian History Documents in Russian History Alexander II, Emancipation Manifesto, 1861 From Documents in Russian History The Abolition of Serfdom in Russia The Manifesto of February 19, 1861 This is the ceremonial preamble to the hundreds of pages of statutes spelling out the terms of the abolition of serfdom. It was ghost-written by the Metropolitan of Moscow, who opposed the reform. By the Grace of God WE, Alexander II, Emperor and Autocrat of All Russia, King of Poland, Grand Duke of Finland, etc., make known to all OUR faithful subjects: Called by Divine Providence and by the sacred right of inheritance to the Russian throne of OUR ancestors, WE vowed in OUR heart to respond to the mission which is entrusted to Us and to surround with OUR affection and OUR Imperial solicitude all OUR faithful subjects of every rank and condition, from the soldier who nobly defends the country to the humble artisan who works in industry; from the career official of the state to the plowman who tills the soil.

Examining the condition of classes and professions comprising the state, WE became convinced that the present state legislation favors the upper and middle classes, defines their obligations, rights, and privileges, but does not equally favor the serfs, so designated because in part from old laws and in part from custom they have been hereditarily subjected to the authority of landowners, who in turn were obligated to provide for their well being. Rights of nobles have been hitherto very broad and legally ill defined, because they stem from tradition, custom, and the good will of the noblemen. In most cases this has led to the establishment of good patriarchal relations based on the sincere, just concern and benevolence on the part of the nobles, and on affectionate submission on the part of the peasants. Because of the decline of the simplicity of morals, because of in the diversity of relations, because of the weakening of the direct paternal relationship of nobles toward the peasants, and because noble rights fell sometimes into the hands of people exclusively concerned with their personal interests, good relations weakened. The way was opened for an arbitrariness burdensome for the peasants and detrimental to their welfare, causing them to be indifferent to the improvement of their own existence.

These facts had already attracted the attention of OUR predecessors of glorious memory, and they had adopted measures aimed at improving the conditions of the peasants; but these measures were ineffective, partly because they depended on the free, generous action of nobles, and partly because they affected only some localities, by virtue of special circumstances or as an experiment Thus Alexander I issued a decree on free agriculturists, and the late Emperor Nicholas, OUR beloved father, promulgated one dealing with serfs: in the Western provinces, inventory regulations now determine the peasant land allotments and their obligations. But decrees on free agriculturists and [western] serfs have been carried out on a limited scale only. WE thus became convinced that the problem of improving the condition of serfs was a sacred inheritance bequeathed to Us by OUR predecessors, a mission which, in the course of events, Divine Providence has called upon Us to fulfill. WE have begun this task by expressing OUR confidence toward the Russian nobility, which has proven on so many occasions its devotion to the Throne, and its readiness to make sacrifices for the welfare of the country.

WE have left to the nobles themselves, in accordance with their own wishes, the task of preparing proposals for the new organization of peasant life; proposals that would limit their rights over the peasants, and the realization of which would inflict on them [the nobles] some material losses. OUR confidence was justified. Through members of the provincial committees, who were entrusted [with the task] by the corporate organizations of the nobility in each province, after collecting the necessary data, have formulated proposals on a new arrangement for serfs and their relationship with the nobles. These proposals were diverse, because of the nature of the problem. They have been compared, collated, systematized, rectified and finalized in the Main Committee instituted for that purpose; and these new arrangements dealing with the peasants and household serfs of the nobility have been examined in the Council of State. Having invoked Divine assistance, WE have resolved to execute this task. On the basis of the above-mentioned new arrangements, the serfs will receive in time the full rights of free rural inhabitants.

The nobles, while retaining their property rights to all the lands belonging to them, grant the peasants perpetual use of their household plots in return for a specified obligation; and, to assure their livelihood as well as to guarantee fulfillment of their obligations toward time government, [the nobles] grant them a portion of arable land fixed by the said arrangements as well as other property. While enjoying these land allotments, the peasants are obliged, return, to fulfill obligations to the noblemen fixed by the same arrangements. In this status, which is temporary, the peasants are temporarily bound. At the same time, they are granted the right to purchase their household plots, and, with the consent of the nobles, they may acquire in full ownership the arable lands and other properties which are allotted them for permanent use. Following such acquisition of full ownership of land, the peasants will be freed from their obligations to the nobles for the land thus purchased and will become free peasant landowners. A special decree dealing with household serfs will establish a temporary status for them, adapted to their occupations and their needs. At the end of two years from the day of the promulgation of this decree, they shall receive full freedom and some temporary benefits.

In accordance with the fundamental principles of these arrangements, the future organization of peasants and household serfs will be determined, the order of general peasant administration will be established, and the rights given to the peasants and to the household serfs will be spelled out in detail, as will the obligations imposed on them toward the government and the nobles. Although these arrangements, general as well as local, and the special supplementary rules affecting some particular localities, estates of petty nobles, and peasants working in factories and enterprises of the nobles, have been as far as possible adapted to economic necessities and local customs; nevertheless, to preserve the existing order where it presents reciprocal advantages, WE leave it to the nobles to reach a voluntary understanding with the peasants and to reach agreements on the extent of the land allotment and the obligations stemming from it, observing, at the same time, the established rules to guarantee the inviolability of such agreements. This new arrangement, because of its complexity, cannot be put into effect immediately, an interval of not less than two years is necessary. During this period, to avoid all misunderstanding and to protect public and private interests, the order actually existing on the estates of nobles should be maintained until the new order shall become effective.

Towards that end, WE have deemed it advisable: 1. To establish in each province a special Office of Peasant Affairs, which will be entrusted with the affairs of the peasant communes established on the estates of the nobility. 2. To appoint in every district arbiters of the peace to solve all misunderstandings and disputes which may arise from time new arrangements and to organize from these justices district assemblies. 3. To organize Peace Offices on the estates of the nobles, leaving the village communes as they are, and to open cantonal offices in the large villages and unite small village communes under one cantonal office. 4. To formulate, verify, and confirm in each village commune or estate a charter which will specify, on the basis of local conditions, the amount of land allotted to the peasants for permanent use, and the scope of their obligations to the nobleman for the land as well as for other advantages which are granted. 5. To put these charters into practice as they are gradually approved on each estate, and to put them into effect everywhere within two years from the date of publication of this manifesto. 6. Until that time, peasants and household serfs must be obedient towards their nobles, and scrupulously fulfill their former obligations.

7. The nobles will continue to keep order on their estates, with the right of jurisdiction and of police, until the organization of cantons and of cantonal courts. Aware of the unavoidable difficulties of this reform, WE place OUR confidence above all in the graciousness of Divine Providence, which watches over Russia. WE also rely upon the zealous devotion of OUR nobility, to whom WE express OUR gratitude and that of the entire country as well, for the unselfish support it has given to the realization of OUR designs. Russia will not forget that the nobility, motivated by its respect for the dignity of man and its Christian love of its neighbor, has voluntarily renounced serfdom, and has laid the foundation of a new economic future for the peasants. WE also expect that it will continue to express further concern for the realization of the new arrangement in a spirit of peace and benevolence, and that each nobleman will bring to fruition on his estate the great civic act of time entire group by organizing the lives of his peasants and his household serfs on mutually advantageous terms, thereby setting for the rural population a good example of a punctual and conscientious execution of the state's requirements.

The examples of the generous concern of the nobles for the welfare of peasants, amid the gratitude of the latter for that concern, give Us the hope that a mutual understanding will solve most of the difficulties, which in some cases will be inevitable during the application of general rules to the diverse conditions on some estates, and that thereby the transition from the old order to time new will be facilitated, and that in the future mutual confidence will be strengthened, and a good understanding and a unanimous tendency towards the general good will evolve. To facilitate the realization of these agreements between the nobles arid the peasants, by which the latter may acquire full ownership of their household plots and their houses, the government will lend assistance, under special regulations, by means of loans or transfer of debts encumbering an estate. WE rely upon the common sense of OUR people. When the government advanced the idea of abolishing serfdom, there developed a partial misunderstanding among the unprepared peasants. Some were concerned about freedom and not concerned about obligations.

But, generally, the common sense of the nation has not wavered, because it has realized that every individual who enjoys freely the benefits of society owes it in return certain positive obligations; according to Christian law every individual is subject to higher authority (Romans, chap. xiii., 1); everyone must fulfill his obligations, and, above all, render tribute, dues, respect, and honor Ibid., chap 7). What legally belongs to nobles cannot be taken away from them without adequate compensation, or through their voluntary concession; it would be contrary to all justice to use the land of the nobles without assuming corresponding obligations. And now WE confidently expect that the freed serfs, on the eve of a new future which is opening to them, will appreciate and recognize the considerable sacrifices which the nobility has made on their behalf. They should understand that by acquiring property and greater freedom to dispose of their possessions, they have an obligation to society and to themselves to live up to the letter of the new law by a loyal and judicious use of the rights which are now granted to them. However beneficial a law may be, it cannot make people happy if they do not themselves organize their happiness under protection of the law.

Abundance is acquired only through hard work, wise use of strength and resources, strict economy, and above all, through an honest God-fearing life. The authorities who prepared the new way of life for the peasants and who will be responsible for its inauguration will have to see that this task is accomplished with calmness and regularity, taking advantage of the time allotted, in order not to divert the attention of cultivators away from their agricultural work. Let them zealously work the soil and harvest its fruits so that they will have a full granary of seeds to return to the soil which will be theirs. And now, Orthodox people, make the sign of the cross, and join with Us to invoke's blessing upon your free labor, the sure pledge of your personal well being and the public prosperity. Given at St. Petersburg, March 3, the year of Grace 1861, and the seventh of OUR reign.

Alexander Tsar Alexander II Frees the Serfs previous | next Freeing the Serfs In 1856, Tsar Alexander II spoke before the gentry of Moscow and asked them to consider emancipating their serfs, adding that it would be better to begin to abolish serfdom from above rather than wait for a rising from below. Preparing the way for the more liberal and self-regulating society that was a part of the economically advanced societies in the West, Alexander described his government's new policy as glasnost (openness), including greater freedom of the press and thought. He said that censorship was to remain and that there remained a need to exercise "judicious vigilance." But, he said, it ought not "inhibit thinking." In 1858, committees of gentry gathered in Russia's various provinces, and, representing the gentry in general, nine met in what was called a Main Committee, at St. Petersburg, and they agreed to the abolition of serfdom. Then in March 1861 (on the same day that Abraham Lincoln took his oath of office) Alexander issued his Emancipation Manifesto.

In charge of the program of emancipation was the adjutant-general, Count Panin, who had owned 20,000 serfs. The lords were to receive compensation in the form of treasury bonds, and the freed serfs were to pay for their freedom not as individuals but collectively. Except in the Ukraine and a few other areas, lands were distributed to communities of former serfs – communities called communes. Government officials hoped that a commune of freed serfs would be more responsible than scattered individuals, and that communes would prevent the creation of numerous isolated persons without property. It was the commune that was to be responsible for distributing land to the former serfs, for collecting taxes and providing recruits for the military and other obligations. Payments by freed serfs to the government were to be annual for forty-nine years. The lords were to keep title to their lands, including that portion – perhaps half – that had been given to the commune. Many freed serfs, especially in the fertile agricultural regions in the southern provinces, felt that they did not get all the land that had been promised them. Some serf communities failed to receive forested areas or access to a river and were forced to bargain with their former lords for access to these.

According to one source, the former serfs received 18 percent less land than they had been promised, and 42 percent of the former serfs received allotments of land insufficient to maintain their families. note84 Some former serfs rioted, including some who believed that the real emancipation decree was being kept from them by their former lord. Some other former serfs accepted their situation with what a Russian prince, Peter Kropotkin, described as their "inborn good nature." Kropotkin described their servility disappearing and talking to their masters as equals. Alexander II, meanwhile, had earned the title Tsar-Liberator. Declaration of Alexander II Emancipating the Serfs (March 3, 1861) Declaration of Alexander II Emancipating the Serfs (March 3, 1861) [Readings in Modern European History, James Harvey Robinson and Charles Beard, eds., vol. 2 (Boston:Ginn and Company, 1908), pp.

348-252] We, Alexander II, by the grace of God Tsar and Autocrat of all the Russias, King of Poland, Grand Duke of Finland, etc., make known to all our faithful subjects : Summoned to the throne of our ancestors by Divine Providence and the sacred law of heredity, we have promised ourselves with heartfelt sincerity to extend our affection and imperial solicitude to all our faithful subjects, whatever their rank or condition, from the soldier who nobly bears arms in the defense of his country to the humble artisan who faithfully carries on his industry ; from the functionary who occupies a high office in the State to the laborer whose plow furrows the fields. As we consider the various classes of which the State is composed, we are convinced that the laws of our empire which have wisely provided for the upper and middle classes, and have fixed with precision their rights and obligations, have not reached the same degree of success in relation to the peasants bound to the soil, who, either through ancient laws or custom, have been hereditarily subjected to the authority of the landlords.

Indeed, the rights of landowners over their serfs have hitherto been very extensive and very imperfectly defined by the laws, which have been supplemented by tradition, custom, and the good will of the landlords. This system has at best established patriarchal relations based upon the fairness and benevolence of the landowners and an affectionate docility on the part of the peasants ' but as manners have lost their simplicity, the paternal ties between the landlords and the peasants have been weakened. Furthermore, as the seigniorial authority falls into the hands of those exclusively intent on their own selfish advantage, those relations of mutual good will have tended to give way and open the door to arbitrariness, burdensome to the peasants and hostile to their prosperity. This has served to develop in them an indifference to all progress. These facts did not fail to impress our predecessors of glorious memory, and they took measures to improve the lot of the peasants ; but these measures have had little effect, since they were either dependent for their execution on the individual initiative of such landlords as might be animated by a liberal spirit or were merely local in their scope, or adopted as an experiment.

We became convinced, therefore, that the work of fundamentally ameliorating the condition of the peasant was for us a sacred heritage from our ancestors, a mission which in the course of events Divine Providence had called us to fulfill. We have commenced this work by demonstrating our imperial confidence in the nobility of Russia, who have given us so many proofs of their devotion and their constant disposition to make sacrifices for the well-being of the country. It was to the nobility themselves that, in conformity to their own wishes, we reserved the right of formulating the provisions for the new organization of the peasants, -- provisions which involve the necessity of limiting their own rights over the peasants, and of accepting the responsibilities of a reform which could only be accomplished with some material losses to them. Our confidence has not been deceived. We have found the nobility, united in committees in the various governments, ready to make, through agents who enjoyed their confidence, the voluntary sacrifices of their rights so far as the personal servitude of the peasants is concerned.

The propositions of the local committees of the nobilitywhich varied greatly, as might be expected from the nature of the problem -- have been collated, compared, and reduced to a regular system, then adjusted and supplemented by a higher committee appointed for the purpose. The new provisions thus formulated relative to the peasants and the domestic serfs of the landholders have been submitted to the Council of the Empire. After having invoked divine assistance we have resolved to carry out the work according to the regulations thus drawn up. The peasants now bound to the soil shall, within the term fixed by the law, be vested with the full rights of freemen. The landed proprietors, while they shall retain all the rights of ownership over all the lands now belonging to them, shall transfer to the peasants, in return for a rent fixed by law, the full enjoyment of their cottages, farm buildings, and gardens. Furthermore, in order to assure to the peasants their subsistence and enable them to meet their obligations toward the State, the landlords shall turn over to the peasants a quantity of arable and other land provided for in the regulations above mentioned. In return for these allotments the peasant families shall be required to pay rent to the landlords, as fixed by the provisions of the law.

Under these conditions, which are temporary, the peasants shall be designated as " temporarily bound." At the same time the peasants are granted the right of purchasing their cottages and gardens, and, with the consent of the landlords, they may acquire in complete ownership the arable lands and other lands allotted to them as a permanent holding. By the acquisition of a complete title to the land assigned them, the peasants [1] shall be freed from their obligations toward the landlords for land thus purchased, and thus enter definitively into the class of free peasants and landowners. Since the new organization, owing to the unavoidable complexity of the changes which it involves, cannot immediately be put into execution, a lapse of time is necessary, which cannot be less than two years or thereabouts -- to avoid all misunderstanding and to protect public and private interests during this interval, the system actually existing on the estates Of landowners will be maintained up to the moment when the new system shall have been instituted by the completion of the required preparatory measures. Aware of all the difficulties of the reform we have undertaken, we place our trust in the goodness of Divine providence, who watches over the destinies of Russia.

We also count upon the generous devotion of our faithful nobility, and we are happy to testify to that body the gratitude it has deserved from us, as well as from the country, for the disinterested support it has given to the accomplishment of our designs. Russia will not forget that the nobility, actuated solely by its respect for the dignity of man and its love for its neighbor, has spontaneously renounced the rights it enjoyed in virtue of the system of serfdom now abolished, and has laid the foundation of a new future for the peasants. We also entertain the firm hope that it will also direct its further efforts to carry out the new regulation by maintaining good order, in a spirit of peace and benevolence. In order to render the transactions between the landlords and the peasants easier, so that the latter may acquire in full proprietorship their houses and the adjacent lands and buildings, the government will grant them assistance, according to a special regulation, through loans of money or a transfer of mortgages encumbering an estate. When the first rumors of this great reform contemplated by the government spread among the country people who were scarcely prepared for it, it gave rise in some instances to misunderstandings among individuals more intent upon liberty than mindful of the duties which liberty imposes.

But generally the good sense of the country has asserted itself. It has been understood that the landlords would not be deprived of rights legally acquired, except for a fit and sufficient indemnity, or by a voluntary concession on their part ; that it would be contrary to all equity for the peasants to accept the enjoyment of the lands conceded by the landlords without at the same time accepting equivalent charges. And now we confidently hope that the freed serfs, in the presence of the new future which is opened before them, will appreciate and recognize the considerable sacrifices which the nobility has made on their behalf. They will understand that the blessing of an existence based upon full ownership of their property, as well as the greater liberty in the administration of their possessions, entails upon them, with new duties towards society and themselves, the obligation of justifying the new laws by a loyal and judicious use of the rights which are now accorded them. For if men do not themselves endeavor to insure their own well- being under the aegis of the laws, the best of those laws cannot guarantee it to them.

Only by assiduous labor, a rational expenditure of their strength and resources, a strict economy, and, above all, by an upright life, -- a life constantly inspired by the fear of the Lord, -can they hope for prosperity and progress. And now, my orthodox and faithful people, make the holy sign of the cross and join thy prayers to ours, invoking the blessing of the Most High upon thy first free labors, for this alone is a sure pledge of private well-being and the public weal. Given at St. Petersburg, the nineteenth day of February [March 3, new style], of the year of grace 186 1 and the seventh of our reign. ALEXANDER [1] This does not mean the individual peasants, but the village community, which was perpetuated under the new law.

Question: Who was Tsar of Russia when the serfs were emancipated?
Answer: ALEXANDER II